Is our math wrong? Is it our assumption of zero, or absolute nothingness?

There are know phenomena out there such as the gamma ray burst that total destroys(use loosely your ego wants to argue this syntax error not the mind) our current math and physics(e=mc2). But instead of saying well maybe we got a key part of our math wrong we make it so the phenomena matches our math. This is my personal take on what I think might be wrong. I think it has to do with our assumption of zero. Seeing how you can never have absolute nothingness as a base or starting point. Conceptually the idea of zero is great. I want an apple. But i am in a complete void of apples. I don't have a single one. Not even applesauce! I have ZERO apples. But I do not need to know that you have zero apples to know when you have 1 apple. On the other had I do need to know that you have 1 apple to understand that now you have 2 apple. I could be wrong. It just something that bothers me.

Also I am not a math person it has always been something I struggled with in school those pesky numbers. However in College I excelled at Logic, but that has been some time ago.

I am not say this is the answer I just say that I think there is something fundamentally wrong with our math

Oct 3 2012:
Thank you that is a perspective I did not notice before about advancing technology. And really the only thing that comes to minded is we should not create AI.....yet .....yet. We need to learn to treat other humans like equals firsts, before we will ever see them as equals. Once we can do this see our fellow living creatures as equals, then we should advanced AI but only then.

Oct 2 2012:
"Zero quantity" is not quite the same as "nothing". We can have 0 dollars in the pocket. We can visualize that - an empty pocket. We can visualize vacuum - an empty space. We can visualize a 0 on a scale as a point relative to other points. But we cannot visualize "nothing" as a starting point of the universe - no space, no time, no matter, no energy... nothing. We cannot experience it or have evidence of its existence - because "nothing" in this sense, is non-existence itself. It's not even a void. "What is nothing?" is a loaded question. It implies that "nothing is...". We cannot even say "nothing is..." or "nothing is not..." - that would be saying too much about nothing. We cannot explain what is wrong with nothing. We cannot say ANYTHING about nothing. My post on this topic is one paragraph too long.

Oct 2 2012:
I agree. The problem is that this concept is apriori. It cannot be drawn from any experience. It cannot be drawn from logic. It cannot be defined in a way that makes sense. It's like one of those Zen koans that can only be understood by silent meditation, but cannot be taught or explained, because words or images always describe something, not nothing.

Oct 4 2012:
You can 'understand' Zen koans if you have a proper context in your mind. Though 'understand' does not describe what you've got. Sufi poets have a word that can be translated into English as ' standing under ' , it brings holistic quality and more related to knowing , than knowing about . But you are right, it has something to do with Zero. It is nothing where something is dimly visible, but can't be fixed by understanding/language .

Oct 6 2012:
Re : In the world of information...
Our world is information. The idea that information is prior to matter is millennia old, but only now we seem to be ready to download it into our mind , iow to figure it out :)

Oct 5 2012:
Good point. In the world of information, an infinite sequence of logical zeroes has the same amount of information as an infinite sequence of logical ones - none. In this informational sense, "nothing" and "everything" are identical. They equally make no sense.

One bit of information is born when a logical zero switches to one (or vice versa). That's when we have "something" and that's when it starts making sense. The universe is born when all these bits start toggling.

Oct 2 2012:
Is "blackness" same as darkness? When I visualize blackness or darkness, I see a black canvas or a black background with nothing on it, absence of light. But it has spatial characteristics. I can also imagine it for some time. Space only makes sense when matter is present to visualize separation between objects. Time only makes sense when there is a material periodic process, be it only a wave function of an electron. When there is no matter, no space, and no time, it's beyond our understanding. I know, this explanation does not make sense. That's the point.
It is not blackness, darkness, or silence. It is not huge, not tiny, not black, not white, it has no properties whatsoever. It is nothing. It cannot even be reflected or accurately represented by anything. One can only meditate on it. That's two paragraphs too many about nothing :)

Oct 2 2012:
Well from my stand point reading your two paragraphs,i just stated blackness,it has no comparison to anything within this physical universe,from the paragraphs,you gave it form,spatial characteristics,"canvas" is there a possible inference to something that exists within this universe? and yes you can imagine blackness behind your eye's for as long as you want,now go into it while still keeping it behind your eye's and look back,there is no distance,no up,no down,no colour variations,light did not exist before it,it's just blackness,it's the emotive backlash that usually stops the mind from accepting it by trying to compare it to something,like you said it's not huge,silent,tiny but blackness is the only thing closest to nothing we have,it is the blackness when you are losing consciousness,it has no measurement until you change it or add to it.

If this isn't good enough then "nothing' will ever be good enough and the next reply will only mean the word "measurement"

Oct 2 2012:
Ken, I guess, you just used another word for "nothing". We can create different words or symbols to mean the same ideas. I just did not agree to use "blackness" to mean "nothing" because "blackness" implies color which is a property of something. But, as you explained what you meant, I agree that, perhaps, the only way to understand or experience "nothing" is to stop all brain activity altogether which is to stop experiencing whatsoever. I refer to your phrase that "it is the blackness when you are losing consciousness".

Oct 9 2012:
Actual it most certainly adds up to 1 at least one conversation. However I am fine with people submitting post. I am always up for a good game of devils advocate. Whether for or against these questions. The problem is most need to leave ego at the login. Ego is whats created when you put self first instead trying to see what the other person is actually talking about or trying to understand it.

Oct 9 2012:
Yes, I'd read this (I know Alan and follow his blog). Broun is a medical doctor and sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology."
The same day this story broke there were two similar ones:
"Arkansas Republicans tried to distance themselves Saturday from a Republican state representative's assertion that slavery was a "blessing in disguise" and a Republican state House candidate who advocates deporting all Muslims.

Oct 9 2012:
Yeah that is ridiculous that these people would come to some understanding on how that could be truth. That public policy needs to be influenced, for these things is amazing to me and makes me wonder how these people ever got elected in the first place.

Why is it so hard to see people/all living things as equals? I will never understand. Other then out of pure ego.

Comment deleted

Sep 30 2012:
Re: " This is my personal take on what I think might be wrong. I think it has to do with our assumption of zero'"

Where is the logic to this argument? You have not defined what it is that you "think might be wrong," nor have you explained a concept of zero that would serve as an assumption.
Where did the concept of zero originate, what is its history? Let's start there.

"Initially, zero functioned as a mere placeholder—a way to tell 1 from 10 from 100, to give an example using Arabic numerals. "That's not a full zero," Seife says. "A full zero is a number on its own; it's the average of –1 and 1."

Sep 30 2012:
First I don't see why you have to add 0+1=1 if you have one of something wouldn't it just be one so 1 apple = 1 apple. I don't need to know that you started at zero to now understand that you have 1 apple. Now to know if you have 2 apples I must first need to know that you have one. So we could write that as 0+1+1= 2 or we could just go with 1+1=2. Also when you are using zero=nothing instead of zero=none when you write out the math problem it would read like this: nothing that is equal to an apple plus one that is equal to an apple equals one that is equal to an apple. Or it can be written like this: none that is equal to an apple plus one that is equal to an apple equals one that is equal to an apple.

But truly we like to group things (arbitrary units) to make it easier on the brain, for there is no such thing as 2 apples that are the same. They are all individual representation of what is apple. The cave man realized, all is a individual representation. Their math looked like this and also did not have zero, 1=1,11=2,111=3 ect. There are 7 billion individual people on this earth, grouped and categorical as a whole. But really it's 7 billion 1's not 7,000,000,000. For them to be identical they would also have to take up the same space time.

So if you want the big picture of what I am saying is that in the "physical world" There is no zero, no negative numbers and no 2(of identical things) and all that exist is a bunch of 1's. For we are all one

Sep 30 2012:
Numbers are symbols, they represent ideas and concepts in a way that allow mathematicians to resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures. It's clear that you are not thinking on a higher order of mathematics, say calculating the motion of a physical object. If you're simply adding apples, you are correct, you will never need zero or negatives numbers.

Did you read the links?

David Hilbert said of mathematics: 'We are not speaking here of arbitrariness in any sense. Mathematics is not like a game whose tasks are determined by arbitrarily stipulated rules. Rather, it is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise."

Oct 1 2012:
Please tell me more on how are math and units of measurements are not arbitrary. How should we measure distances? Miles, feet, nautical mile, yards, meters, Roman mile,Arab mile, Meile? These units are arbitrary! For they can mean anything you want and any distance you want. So how do we measure distance? Use the "lowest common denominator"? The Atom? Then you need to ask how do we measure the the distance between Atom(x) and Atom(y)? Wait I know when we find the Higgs Boson that will tell us why we have mass. So we can use the Higgs or "God partial" to measure the distance between Atom(x) and Atom(y). But wait, how does the higgs have mass and how can we measure the distance between 2 higgs? This is never ending, its a circle discovery. This should lead to infinity and then lead to energy and then thats all there is and all there ever will be is energy in its infinite form.

Sep 24 2012:
A number of years ago, I had to travel to Detroit for business. While I was there, I heard a very interesting show on CBC Radio (Canada) about zero. The parties on the show also mentioned a book titled "The Nothing that Is:A Natural History of Zero" by Robert and Ellen Kaplan. It is a very fascinating book that talks about how zero came to be and why it is used as it is today. You can find this book on Amazon or probably at your local public library. I encourage you to locate a copy and read about it. The book is not long, but chock full of interesting historical info and tidbits.

Oct 9 2012:
Zero most certainly exists. And there are places all around us where nothing exists. If we freeze time so that not a single molecule in the universe is moving we'll find that none of them are in contact with any other. So then there must be blank spaces. If we were to say that zero doesn't exist then how could we quantify the number of things in those blank spaces? Yes, zero as a number raises logical problems, but that does not mean our math is wrong, it simply means it is incomplete. When Sir Isaac Newton was working on gravity he never really reached a point that made sense, his theory had things being pulled, which nature never does. Does that mean his theory was wrong? No, it means it wasn't done yet. Even today, we don't really know exactly how gravity works but again, that only means we're not done learning about it yet. Math is the same way. We developed math to describe natural phenomena that we already understood (adding 1 apple to 1 apple makes 2 apples). Then as we came to understand new things and wanted to quantify them we developed new types of math, a great example is calculus. We first have to understand a phenomena, then create ways to quantify it.

Oct 9 2012:
That is "theory" it can only ever be proven wrong to some degree or another. So yeah theory's are never right or wrong. Only proven to be able to replicate the same process over and over again. Until proven wrong to some degree.

Oct 9 2012:
I think you misunderstand the scale I'm talking about. The objects I mean to discuss are smaller than we can see even with aid. You said you excelled at logic so I'll deal only with that. There are varying degrees of sized things in our universe, so there must be a smallest thing. Right now we haven't seen the smallest thing but if there is no smallest thing there cannot be things of varying size (since once things are different sizes there are smallest things). So if everything is built up out of these smallest things and they are not connected (because if they were connected they would be the same thing) then there must be a space between them. If there were no space between these smallest things then motion wouldn't be possible except as a group. That is the blank space I'm talking about, the epically tiny distances between the smallest units of matter.
You're correct, no two things are identical, but similarities cause things to fit into similar groups. For example: objects that have the quality of existence are things. Any object that can be said to exist falls within this group. Because of this group (which I don't see how it could be denied that objects that exist are things) we can quantify the number of things in a space. Say I have a space in which there are ten things that have the same exact size but every other property is different (thus satisfying that no two things are identical) and in the space there is enough room for 15 things. So there is 5 things-worth of blank space. Our universe is like this. Our observations have shown that 1) matter cannot be created or destroyed and 2) our universe is constantly expanding. Since new matter is never created there is always the same number of things in the universe but the amount of space is getting larger. If one quantity remains static while another rises then after a point the latter will always be larger. So if we don't have more space than things now at some point we will.

"So if everything is built up out of these smallest things and they are not connected (because if they were connected they would be the same thing) then there must be a space between them." Would energy count as the connection? For we as organism "human" are not connected.

"If there were no space between these smallest things then motion wouldn't be possible except as a group." Is this not how the human body function as a group? E pluribus unum.

"That is the blank space I'm talking about, the epically tiny distances between the smallest units of matter." You that is matter has never touched any other matter ever. Our energy's touch other energy but we do not "touch" anything.

"Say I have a space in which there are ten things that have the same exact size but every other property is different (thus satisfying that no two things are identical) and in the space there is enough room for 15 things. So there is 5 things-worth of blank space. Our universe is like this. Our observations have shown that 1) matter cannot be created or destroyed and 2) our universe is constantly expanding." Have you heard of filling a glass with, rock, sand, water? Even an empty glass is not empty! Matter does not exist energy can not be created or destroyed. I would suggest that the universe is a torus or at least a double torus (which looks much like a figure 8. Also torus's can be found everywhere.

Oct 9 2012:
cont. Therefore, if there are not blank spaces now there will be. In these spaces there are zero things and nothingness.
Now, your point on theory. From an epistemic standpoint it is flawed. Truth is an absolute. My opinion on the best and most concise definition of truth is "an accurate representation of reality". So what's true is true and what's not true is false. Theory's are statements of what the theorist believes to be true. So if the theory accurately represents reality then it is true, if it does not then it is false. A theory is incomplete when it partially reflects reality and partially does not. I'll give a few examples: If my theory predicts that Barack Obama is President of the United States it is true. If my theory predicts that George Washington is secretary of state it is false. If a theory predicts both of the former then it is true in some aspects and false in others and is incomplete. Further, all knowledge begins as a hypothesis, then becomes a theory, and once it is tested its truth is determined and it becomes knowledge. If we add in the stigma that all theory's are wrong and can't be proven right then we can't have knowledge. By that logic nothing this thread, including your initial argument, can be substantiated and then we all have to admit we're wrong. Hume would agree but I take other issues with his theory, which would be a bit lengthy to discuss. The point is, your "theory of theory" has logical flaws that can't be avoided. I hope this is a bit more clear than before. If any premises above seem to be flawed let me know and I'll write another novel for you.

Comment deleted

Until I find a point at least in this conversation where we greatly disagree, and I mean greatly. You can always talk or post on my behalf (I am always interested in seeing your perspective), your written words are far superior to mine. :) Please just keep doing what you do.

Oct 6 2012:
How is this thread still going? Numerous people have pointed out there is nothing magical about zero, that it does not represent absolute nothingness, that it can be moved by a constant and that it is not the starting point of all math, in other words all the OP's questions and claims have been answered/debunked weeks ago.

Oct 6 2012:
Actually outside out side of context, nobody has proven anything! Zero or "no thing" still does not exist and neither does two of any identical thing. So if you have examples in nature. Please feel free to put forward your argument, otherwise my questions still stand.

Here might be a helpful video for you to understand that the world you call reality is just as imagined as the dreams you have at night.

Oct 6 2012:
Our maths aren't wrong, its reality itself that defies definition. For example, why is the result of a division by zero is undefined? The reason is the fact that any attempt at a definition leads to a contradiction.

To begin with, how do we define division? The ratio r of two numbers a and b:
r=a/b
is that number r that satisfies
a=r*b.

Well, if b=0, i.e., we are trying to divide by zero, we have to find a number r such that r*0=a. (1)
But r*0=0
for all numbers r, and so unless a=0 there is no solution of equation (1).

Now you could say that r=infinity satisfies (1). That's a common way of putting things, but what's infinity? It is not a number! Why not? Because if we treated it like a number we'd run into contradictions. Ask for example what we obtain when adding a number to infinity. The common perception is that infinity plus any number is still infinity. If that's so, then

infinity = infinity+1 = infinity + 2
which would imply that 1 equals 2 if infinity was a number. That in turn would imply that all integers are equal, for example, and our whole number system would collapse!

So, what now? How about 0/0?

I said above that we can't solve the equation (1) unless a=0. So, in that case, what does it mean to divide by zero? Again, we run into contradictions if we attempt to assign any number to 0/0. Let's call the result of 0/0, z, if it made sense. z would have to satisfy:
z*0=0. (2)

That's OK as far as it goes, any number z satisfies that equation. But it means that the result of 0/0 could be anything. We could argue that it's 1, or 2, and again we have a contradiction since 1 does not equal 2.

But perhaps there is a number z satisfying (2) that's somehow special and we just have not identified it? So here is a slightly more subtle approach. Division is a continuous process. Suppose b and c are both non-zero. Then, in a sense that can be made precise. the ratios a/b and a/c will be close if b and c are close. A similar statement applies to the numerator of a ratio (except that it may be zero.)

So now assume that 0/0 has some meaningful numerical value (whatever it may be - we don't know yet), and consider a situation where both a and b in the ratio a/b become smaller and smaller. As they do the ratio should become closer and closer to the unknown value of 0/0.

There are many ways in which we can choose a and b and let them become smaller. For example, suppose that a=b throughout the process. For example, we might pick

a=b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ....
Since

a=b,
for all choices of a we get the ratio 1 every time! This suggests that 0/0 should equal 1. But we could just as well pick

b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ....
and let a be twice as large as b. Then the ratio is always 2! So 0/0 should equal 2. But we just said it should equal 1! In fact, by letting a be r times as large as b we could get any ratio r we please!

So again we run into contradictions, and therefore we are compelled to

let 0/0 be undefined.

So, yeah, zero does not exist, unless if you studied calculus and learn about Rule of L'Hôpital. Which then gets pretty whacky and my hands are all tired from typing and steering this spaceship at the same time so I am ashamed to tell you to just Wikipedia it. Sorry.

Oct 6 2012:
L'Hôpital rule? Wait till you learn control systems or filter design, and you have to routinely multiply and divide by infinities and zeros to make machines and circuits work. Or wait until you take another path and come across ℵ0 and ℵ1.

Incidentally, how many digits are there in the decimal expansion of √2 ?

Oct 6 2012:
On the same theme, it seems that the known universe emerged at one time from no thing into everthing, where is the difference? Here the finite and the infinite, and the nothing are like the snake eating it's own tail, one becomes the one, contains the other. Into the black hole of absolute gravity pours everything. This is the point where science and philosophy come together in don't know

Oct 6 2012:
Just because you DON'T understand maths, does not mean there is something wrong with it.

What you describe is just Real Numbers. Have you made friends with Imaginary Numbers yet? ;)

For example, how many is -3³ apples, compared to 1 apple? How many is ∞ apples compared to 1 apple?

Once you finally learn more about fundamental mathematics, and mastered the higher level concept of maths, you will become one with maths, because maths is the key that unlocks the door of electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, to name a few.

Or in lay-human terms, the maths that you think is "fundamentally wrong" is what gives you the television to watch inane politicians spinning lies, wireless communication so you can post on Facebook what you watched on television with your smartphones, et cetera. ;)

Oct 6 2012:
Zen has a bearing on this. In emptiness is everything. In everything is emptiness. When we look for something we find nothing but empty space, when we look for nothing we find everything. The presence of the universe depends upon the space in which it is manifest so the space is not nothing because it is full of everything. So zero is a nonsense into which everything fits.
We think of the vastness of the known universe but this is insignificant quite compared to the space that it is existing within, that's not nothing, it's everything.

Oct 4 2012:
Humans have a habit of warping phenomena around the systems they have created to model the world around us. This true of a lot of the popular theories in contemporary physics. Dark matter etc.. these theories exist to fill the gaps around phenomena which we find difficult to explain.

Maths is, however, different. It depends on whether you believe the structure of the universe to be, fundamentally, mathematical, or whether you believe maths is just anothermodel we have created which (unlike physics) isn't designed to gesture out toward anything in particular. There is a great talk about this exact topic here: http://www.iai.tv/video/pythagoras-dream . It sets forth the basic arguments about mathematics and its nature from a variety of perspectives, you will definitely find it useful.

This is more along the lines of reasoning I am trying to use quote is via Mark Meijer said "All reasoning is circular in the end.

Anyhoo... The point is all numbers and measurements are abstracts, zero included, and abstracts don't actually map onto reality, only onto eachother. It's all self-referential. Representation is itself an abstract notion, there is no such thing in reality.

Which is why all reasoning is circular, it is self-referential :).

But whatever. Your argument is basically "zero is useful". I don't think anyone is disputing that. But what is useful and what is true are two entirely different considerations."

Which is why the only "person we can not see is ourselves". you can see parts of our self but not all of it .

Oct 3 2012:
There is nothing wrong with our math perhaps except for the fact that it is not complete, as in there are things we know exist but cannot yet explain with mathematical models and proofs and there are most probably things that we don't even know exist.

However, the mathematics that we do understand falls beautifully in place like a glove. So much so that there are scientist that believe the only reality is the mathematical reality or that the only way of communicating with alien civilizations (creatures that we have nothing in common with) would be the language of mathematics: they would understand what zero means, and then one, and from that we can agree on the plus sign and equality and inequality and so on.

Math is beautiful, we should put more emphasis on teaching it and the way it is being taught.

Oct 1 2012:
Can you provide an example of where it, zero, is "the starting point of our math system?" I do not see that it is.
Let's also gain your understanding of what zero is a representation of, since you did not answer the previous questin about whether you read the links.
Obviously, one example is the use of an XY axis in a graph. The point where X & Y ( and even Z in a three dimensional representation) intersect is "0." But this is not to say that Zero is "the starting point of our math system." That is a complete misunderstand.

zero |ˈzi(ə)rō; ˈzēˌrō|
cardinal number ( pl. -ros)
no quantity or number; naught; the figure 0 : figures from zero to nine | you've left off a zero—it should be five hundred million.
• a point on a scale or instrument from which a positive or negative quantity is reckoned : the gauge dropped to zero | [as adj. ] a zero rate of interest.
• the temperature corresponding to 0° on the Celsius scale (32° Fahrenheit), marking the freezing point of water : the temperature was below zero.
• the temperature corresponding to 0° on the Fahrenheit scale (approximately minus 18° Celsius), considered a very cold temperature, esp. for outdoor activities : thirty below zero! See also subzero ."

Oct 1 2012:
0,1,2,3,4 also I don't think negative numbers should exist when look at the natural world or "the collective reality". Right the funny thing is you show very good examples of syntax errors that commonly occur do to language.

How can zero as defined by nothing be 0 degrees Fahrenheit and 18 degrees Celsius? Those might represent the same temperature but certainly don't mean nothing.

ze·ro [zeer-oh] Show IPA noun, plural ze·ros, ze·roes, verb, ze·roed, ze·ro·ing, adjective
noun
1.the figure or symbol 0, which in the Arabic notation for numbers stands for the absence of quantity; cipher.
2.the origin of any kind of measurement; line or point from which all divisions of a scale, as a thermometer, are measured in either a positive or a negative direction.
3.a mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.
4.naught; nothing.
5.the lowest point or degree.

I only have a problem with the #4 definition.

P.S. try to hit the reply button so that way we can have a conversation thread instead of just posting on the general conversation.

Oct 1 2012:
Note: One cannot reply to a reply of a reply. No button to hit, hence I added a new comment.

Progress! We have established agreement on the following:

1.the figure or symbol 0, which in the Arabic notation for numbers stands for the absence of quantity; cipher.
2.the origin of any kind of measurement; line or point from which all divisions of a scale, as a thermometer, are measured in either a positive or a negative direction.
3.a mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.

Oct 1 2012:
god I can't bear to watch this.....
Do you have any clue what a function is?
Like any clue at all? Do you know how math works?

If I would write 0 Fahrenheit in math would it not be Fahrenheit(0) or 0*Fahrenheit?
I've found the conversion function from celcius to fahrenheit on wikipedia btw.
[°F] = [°C] × 9⁄5 + 32
If I would want to calculate how much 0 Fahrenheit is in degrees celcius would I not simply need to solve the equation: 0 = [°C] × 9/5 + 32.
Which means that Unknown * 9/5 = 32.
Which could also be written as (32/9) * 5 = unknown.
Which could also be written as Unknown = 17.77777777777777777777777777777.......
Where 17.777.... represents degrees celcius?

Oct 1 2012:
Theodore, I generally agree with most of what you're writing here. I suppose you'll understand why I don't want to participate in the discussion here. However, since you were asking about zero being the starting point of our math system, I thought I'd share an interesting aspect of math with you.
Some people look at all of mathematics as a derivation of logic. An old mathematician called Alonzo Church came up with a way of representing all natural numbers, and operations on them as an implementation of just logic.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding
Here, zero is the first number that is defined. And all other numbers are defined as successors of some number.
If you look at the set-theoretic implementation of numbers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_definition_of_natural_numbers, again, zero is the first number and all the other numbers are just sets of other numbers.
It gets weirder from there! Just with logic, they then came up with rules of arithmetic, and the story goes on and on.

Sep 30 2012:
Ok. In your question I couldn't find an actual question that was typed though I think I got the gist of what you're saying. Having read some of the comment and just becoming more confused as to what you're wanting people to talk about I would simply ask for a mroe clarified question for me to get my internet teeth into :)

Sep 30 2012:
I read most of your conversation with OP but I think many of the problems you encountered stemmed from the initial lack of a common direction. A flaw which I've found many internet debates to have. Give a conversation some direction and it will get somewhere :)

Sep 30 2012:
ye well apparently I'm a straw man consisting of 10 million little straws searching for my 0th straw while being a man searching for my zero point ;)
Ofcourse at the same time I'm all energy and one is all and all is one :s (insert more mumbo jumbo crap here)

Oct 1 2012:
I am saying that if in nature "our collective experience" of what reality is suppose to be. Zero as defined as nothing should not be the starting point of our current math system. For nothing can not be something and as soon as you point to nothing it becomes something simply by use viewing it.

Oct 1 2012:
Hmmm. I'm going to assume that by " the starting point of our current Math system" you mean the starting point of our current COUNTING system (ie 0,1...). Would that be a fair assumption? From what I can tell our current Math system doesn't have a "starting point" per-se and is more of a collection of proofs, stacked on top of one another which allow us to manipulate and model concepts and ideas and further understand things about the nature of the world around us.

I would say that you can, indeed, have "none" of something (I have no apples) also I would say that you can have "nothing" in-terms of abstract concepts such as ownership. I would NOT say that you can say that there are NONE of something in existence if it is possible for that thing to exist but no examples have yet been found (ie, ET life). I would say that you can have a region of space which contains "nothing" but only in a few extreme examples like the one I will describe here:

This situation assumes that Inflationary theory is correct and that "if a tree falls and no-one hears it" it does indeed make a sound (< ie, things occurring outside the observation of an observer do indeed occur)
Lets say that an infinite time has passed from t=0 in the universe and all of matter is separated from all other matter by the impassable barrier of extreme distance. Also, as a result of the universe now being infinitely large, the CBR is now so spread out that it is negligible. With no masses/fields/particles/energy around I think some areas of space could then be presumed to contain "nothing".
That is a HIGHLY guess based example about which I do not know all the details. I'm simply offering a possibility off the top of my head. As an aside, I don't think this example of "nothingness" is particularly useful or holds an valuable insights at all.
I realise I got a bit off topic relative to your thoughts on "Zero as defined as nothing" in our math(/counting?) system but i got a bit carried away :)

Oct 1 2012:
Yes math/counting system. What are you referring to as CBR?(common based reality?) I googled it and came up with Comic Book Resource. I am fine with labeling something as none of something because that also doesn't imply nothing. So with your example you are suggesting that say "the edge of the universe" is less dense of "energy". So if you went out far enough you could postulate that no energy could be found. As of now the only thing that is coming to mind is if we where in this "no" energy area would we still exist. And if we were able to make a suit or space ship that occupied this Nothingness or witness it. I would then suggest it would be because of our limited tools or equipment that would make this nothingness be perceived as nothing.

I would suggest that the "center of our universe" is most likely a black hole, simply because that is what the center of every galaxy is, this is not my idea someone else has already postulated this suggestion.